California Labor Code §2775 (codifying Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) and AB 5) classifies workers using the ABC test. For most security guard work, the practical effect is:

Question

Accepted Answer

Guards are presumed employees unless the hiring PPO can satisfy all three ABC prongs (A: free from control; B: work outside the usual course of the hirer's business; C: customarily engaged in an independently established trade) — and security work is rarely 'outside the usual course' of a PPO's business, so most guards must be employees

Answer

Guards are presumed independent contractors whenever they are paid an hourly rate for shifts that they accept one at a time, and the burden then falls on the guard to prove that an employment relationship exists at all between them

Answer

Borello has no relevance in California since AB 5, because the multi-factor common-law control test it announced was repealed outright and no worker-classification question in this state can now be decided under it by any court

Answer

Guard classification is determined by federal law only, so the Fair Labor Standards Act economic-realities test governs the question and the state's own ABC test cannot be applied to a private patrol operator at all in this context

California Labor Code §2775 (codifying Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) and AB 5) classifies workers using the ABC test. For most security guard work, the practical effect is:

Explanation

Related questions on this topic